U.S. Supreme Court To Consider “Federal Officer” Removal By Tobacco Company

In Watson v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 420 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2005), plaintiffs brought a class action against a tobacco company for selling “Light” cigarettes allegedly in violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The defendants removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which permits removal by any officer of the United States “or any person acting under that officer.” The district court and the Eight Circuit agreed that in following the FTC’s detailed instructions governing cigarette testing and tar/nicotine disclosures in advertising, defendants were “acting under” the agency’s orders for purposes of the removal statute.

After plaintiffs filed a cert. petition in the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court asked the Solicitor General’s Office to weigh in. The SG concluded that Eighth Circuit made a fact-specific error but recommended that the case was not worthy of decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Nevertheless, the Court granted certiorari. The Court has limited the issue on review to the following question: “Whether a private actor doing no more than complying with federal regulation is a ‘person acting under a federal officer’ for the purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), entitling the actor to remove to federal court a civil action brought in state court under state law.”

[The Supreme Court issued its ruling on June 11, 2007, and my discussion appears here.]

California Court Finds No Authority To Force Parties Into Private Mediation

In Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Superior Court, 146 Cal. App. 4th 536, 53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 115 (4th Dist. Jan. 4, 2007), the California Appellate Court held that trial courts do not have the authority to order parties in a complex civil action to attend and pay for private mediation.

In this multi-party construction case, the trial court deemed the matter “complex” within the local rules, and appointed a mediator to conduct settlement conferences for up to 100 hours at $500 per hour. Jeld Wen served objections and did not attend the mediation sessions but invited informal settlement talks. The trial court granted the other parties’ motion to compel Jeld-Wen to attend the mediation, and Jen-Weld appealed.

Reversing, the appellate court noted that although there are certain statutes in place requiring mediation for cases valued at under $50,000, this case exceeded that threshold. It held that in larger cases mediation is purely voluntary, and the trial court must have the agreement of all parties before it can enter an order requiring mediation. Moreover, even after a case is ordered to mediation, the parties have the absolute right to withdraw.

U.S. Supreme Court To Consider Whether Movant Obtaining Preliminary Injunction Is “Prevailing Party” Entitled To Attorneys’ Fees

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to resolve an apparent conflict in the federal appellate courts concerning whether a plaintiff who successfully obtains a preliminary injunction is a “prevailing party” for purposes of fee-shifting statutes. Struhs v. Wyner, 127 S. Ct. 1055 (granting cert. Jan. 12, 2007).

The Eleventh Circuit ruled in Wyner v. Struhs, 179 Fed. Appx. 566 (2006), that plaintiffs who sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and obtained a preliminary injunction against enforcement of state rules that would have interfered with their public performance art that featured nudity, but did not prevail on the later facial challenge to those rules, were still “prevailing parties” entitled to attorneys’ fees. In contrast, the Fourth Circuit held in Smyth v. Rivero, 282 F.3d 268 (2002), that a preliminary injunction is not a ruling on the merits and therefore cannot be the basis for considering the movant a “prevailing party.”

Party Performing Contract Under Protest May Bring Declaratory Judgment Act Claim

In the context of a patent dispute, the U.S. Supreme Court has clarified that federal jurisdiction exists under the Declaratory Judgment Act even though a plaintiff actually performs under a disputed contract, as long as the plaintiff maintains that performance is subject to controversy.

In MedImmune v. Genentech, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 764 (U.S. Jan. 9, 2007), Genentech maintained that MedImmune’s primary product infringed on its patent and demanded royalties. MedImmune maintained that the patent was not enforceable but agreed to pay royalties through a license agreement under protest because of the risk of liability for treble damages and attorney’s fees. It then brought a declaratory judgment action, but the trial court and the Federal Circuit held that such claims could not be brought because MedImmune in fact was performing under the contract so there was no dispute for purposes of Article III.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that jurisdiction did exist, and that by enacting the Declaratory Judgment Act, Congress specifically wanted to avoid requiring a party to breach a contract as a precondition to federal jurisdiction. It noted that the Court’s jurisprudence in government cases made this clear (i.e., Congress did not require a party to actually perform an illegal act for there to be jurisdiction for a declaratory judgment action), and agreed with the many lower courts that had reached the same conclusion with respect to disputes among private parties.

Federal Courts Borrowing State Limitations Periods Must Not Borrow Service Rules

It is well-established federal practice that where an action arises under federal law but Congress has not established a specific limitations period, courts borrow the statute of limitations for the most closely analogous action in the relevant state. However, in S.J. v. Issaquah School Dist. No. 411, 470 F.3d 1288 (9th Cir. Dec. 11, 2006), the court noted that this rule does not extend to borrowing state procedural rules that might be included in that statute.

In this case, it was undisputed that the district court properly applied the limitations period in the Washington Administrative Procedure Act (“WAPA”) to plaintiffs’ claims under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Act. However, the appellate court held that the lower court should not also have applied the 30-day limitations period from the WAPA governing the amount of time in which to effect service of process. Instead, it should have applied Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), which establishes a 120-day limit for serving process.

Texas Requires New Trial On Attorney’s Fee Award After Damages Cut On Appeal

The Texas Supreme Court has considered the effect on an attorney’s fee award of an appellate ruling that drastically reduced the damages awarded.

In Barker v. Eckman, 213 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. Nov. 17, 2006), plaintiffs sued for multiple breaches of contract going back several years. Over objections that most of the claims were untimely, the court entered judgment on a jury verdict for $112,000 and for attorney’s fees under the contract of $250,000. The intermediate appellate court struck all but $16,180 in damages, but held that appeal of the attorney’s fees issue had been waived. The Supreme Court upheld the reduction in damages, but reversed on the waiver issue.

Finding that there was no proper record on which to base a reduction of the fee award at the appellate level, the court remanded for a new trial on the amount of fees attributable to the upheld claims. The court noted that “[n]ot every appellate adjustment to the damages which a jury considered as ‘results obtained’ when making attorney’s fees findings will require reversal,” but in this case the large reduction in damages showed that the error was not harmless and required a new trial.

Statute Awarded Fees On Motions To Enforce Even Though Judgment Was Silent

Under California Corporations Code § 15634, a limited partner has the right to inspect the partnership’s books and records. In Berti v. Santa Barbara Beach Properties, 145 Cal.App.4th 70, 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 364 (2d Dist. Nov. 27, 2006), plaintiffs brought litigation under § 15634 that ultimately was settled under an agreement that was merged into a judgment that did not provide or attorneys’ fees.

When plaintiff brought various motions to enforce the settlement and then sought attorneys’ fees for those efforts, the trial court denied the motion as there was no fee provision in the judgment. However, the appellate court found that the statutory right to fees was superior, and entitled plain­tiffs to fees notwithstanding the absence of a provision for fees within the judgment.

This case illustrates a principle the federal courts have grappled with for some time as well under fee-shifting statutes and offers of judgment. The lesson here is -- before you settle, make sure you know whether attorney's fees snuck their way into the settlement by operation of law.

State Court Default Judgment Estopped Debtors From Re-Litigating Dischargability

In Evans v. Ottimo, 469 F.3d 278 (2d Cir. Nov. 20, 2006), the debtors attempted to litigate whether their debts were nondischargeable under § 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The debt involved a default judgment for Evans for $400,000 entered by a New York state court in which the court found that the debtors had committed fraud. The debtors never appealed that judgment, and commenced bankruptcy proceedings five years later.

Evans argued that the debtors were collaterally estopped from contesting that a judgment for damages due to fraud was nondischargeable, but the bankruptcy court disagreed because the judgment in issue was entered in default.

The district court reversed and the Second Circuit agreed, finding that collateral estoppel principles are applicable even in default judgment situations. The two key conditions for estoppel were satisfied here -- the issue was identical between proceedings, and the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior action.

Mandamus Not Warranted To Prevent Trial From Improperly Being Tried To Jury

The Seventh Circuit has denied mandamus in a case involving a late jury demand.

In In re Linee Aeree Italiane (Alitalia), 469 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. Nov. 27, 2006), the plaintiff demanded a jury trial after the defendants’ status changed from a state-controlled entity (for which a non-jury trial is provided by statute) to a privatized company. Alitalia claimed that the district court should not have allowed plaintiff to make a jury demand based on facts that developed after the initial filing of the case, and sought mandamus. However, the Seventh Circuit concluded that even if Alitalia’s argument about the timing of a jury demand were correct, having to wait to appeal that issue after the entry of final judgment on a jury verdict would not cause Alitalia the sort of irreparable harm required to support mandamus relief. Instead, the appellate court could vacate the judgment and order a bench trial.

Seventh Circuit Reaffirms Allowing Excusing Indigents From Taxation Of Costs

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that costs other than attorneys’ fees “shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.” Most courts have held that the final part of that clause gives district courts the discretion to excuse indigent persons from having to pay costs.

In Rivera v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 631 (7th Cir. Nov. 21, 2006), the City of Chicago asked the appellate court to abolish its precedent creating the indigence exception. The court refused to do so.

Instead, the Seventh Circuit provided guidance to district courts regarding the exercise of their discretion. First, they must make a threshold factual finding that the losing party is incapable of paying the court-imposed costs at this time or in the future. Second, the court should consider the amount of costs, good faith of the losing party, and the closeness and difficulty of the issues raised by a case. Finally, the court must have and state an explanation for its decision to make an exception and deny costs.

Trial Attorney’s Role In Settlement Insufficient To Warrant Reversal Of Jury Verdict

Sometimes the settlement of litigation itself becomes the subject of its own litigation. When that happens, the parties face a risk that if they choose to be represented in the second case by the same counsel who negotiated the settlement of the first case, the other side may claim that such counsel is a fact witness and should be disqualified.

However, in Fonten Corp. v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 469 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. Nov. 17, 2006), the district court denied a motion to disqualify and the attorney was permitted to participate in the trial, and the appellate court affirmed.

The First Circuit concluded that the mere fact that the attorney participated was not sufficiently prejudicial to justify ordering a new trial. Rather, the actual conduct had to be evaluated, and here it did not involve implying that any witness’ version of events was inaccurate based on the attorney’s inside knowledge.

Award Of Costs That Exceeded Authorized Categories Reversed

Under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, absent specific statutory authorization for recovery of additional expenses, district courts are limited in taking costs against the losing party in federal litigation by Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 1920. Crawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc., 482 U.S. 437, 445 (1987).

The Eleventh Circuit recently applied that principle in Corwin v. Walt Disney Co., 468 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. Nov. 2, 2006), to disallow $120,000 of a total award of $171,000, despite the losing party’s failure to timely object to the cost award. The court specifically found that there was no authority to award costs for (a) expert witness fees beyond the statu­tory $40 per diem; (b) travel expenses for attorney travel; (c) mediation expenses; (d) various discovery expenses; and (e) paralegal services.

[Note: This opinion was vacated and superseded at 475 F.3d 1239.]

Voluntary Dismissal For Lack Of Jurisdiction Not With Prejudice Under Rule 41(a)(1)

The Seventh Circuit has clarified the interaction between Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1) and 12(h)(3).

In Murray v. Conseco, Inc., 467 F.3d 602 (7th Cir. Oct. 25, 2006), defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs conceded the jurisdictional point and filed a “notice of consent to dismiss.” Defendants convinced the district court that this was both a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) and also the second time plaintiffs dismissed, and therefore the dismissal was required to be with prejudice under that rule.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed because this was not a voluntary dismissal within the definition of Rule 41(a)(1) due to its being filed later in the proceedings. Instead, plaintiff was complying with the mandate that the court be advised as soon as becoming aware of jurisdictional problems. The court’s dismissal was made in compliance with Rule 12(h)(3), not Rule 41(a)(1), and the two-dismissal rule was not implicated.

Ohio Complaint Was Timely Despite Clerk’s Improper Practice Of Delaying Service

The Supreme Court of Ohio has confirmed a bright-line rule that the filing of a complaint commences the action for statute of limitations purposes.

In Seger v. For Women, Inc., 110 Ohio St.3d 451, 854 N.E.2d 188 (Oct. 4, 2006), plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action days before the expiration of the statute of limitations, but requested the Clerk not to effect service yet because she was still investigating the identity of an additional defendant. The Clerk served the complaint four months later when plaintiff requested it.

Defendants argued that the Clerk violated Rule 4(A), which requires the Clerk to effect service “forthwith,” causing the action to be commenced out of time. While the court agreed that Rule 4(A) was violated, and it condemned the Clerk’s apparent practice of allowing counsel to request delays of service contrary to that rule, it held that Ohio Civil Rule 3(A) establishes an absolute rule that a civil action is commenced the day the complaint is filed “if service is obtained within one year.” It rejected construing Rule 4 as affecting Rule 3 because that would lead to case-by-case evaluations of what “forthwith” meant in particular circumstances, whether delay was intentional, and what the consequences should be.

Reinstatement Under Rule 60(b) Tolls Statute Of Limitations As Of Original Filing

In Stanley v. Foster, 464 F.3d 565 (5th Cir. Sept. 12, 2006), the court considered as a matter of first impression the interplay between two rules dealing with the effect of a dismissal.

In general, if a court dismissed a complaint without prejudice the statute of limitations may continue to run. As a result, the action that the plaintiff was hoping to pursue through an amended complaint may have become time-barred. However, another legal concept holds generally that if a dismissal order is later set aside, the cause is reinstated as though the judgment had never been entered. Taken literally, that would mean that the reinstatement date has no independent significance.

The court in Stanley apparently agreed. Examining the effect upon the statute of limitations of a successful Rule 60(b) motion that reinstated a complaint, the court held that in such a situation the date of the original filing, not of the 60(b) ruling, is the proper date for purposes of the statute of limitations.

Jury Demand Violated Contractual Waiver Of Jury Trial

The Texas Supreme Court has enforced contract language under which a borrower waived the right to a jury trial on any claim or cause of action arising from a promissory note. In re General Electric Capital Corp., 203 S.W.3d 314 (Tex. Sept. 22, 2006).

General Electric brought a non-jury action on the amount remaining unpaid on a note. The trial court originally posted the case to its non-jury docket, but at some point the borrower filed a jury demand and the court moved the case to its jury calendar. The company never received notice from the borrower of the jury demand, but it did receive forms from the court showing the jury docket was being used. Ten months after the jury demand, the company moved to strike the jury demand due to lack of notice and the violation of the contract.

The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court denied relief, but the high court granted mandamus. It found that the contractual language was conspicuous and enforce­able, that the company never waived it, and that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to enforce the contract by striking the jury demand.

Moving To Strike Portions Of Appellate Brief Is Sanctionable In The Seventh Circuit

In Custom Vehicles, Inc. v. Forest River, Inc., 464 F.3d 725 (7th Cir. Sept, 25, 2006), Judge Easterbrook of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion as motions judge to publicize his practice of denying all motions to strike portions of appellate briefs and penalizing the moving party by reducing the size allowed for their merits brief.

He noted that the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure contain no provision for a motion to strike, and that such a motion improperly attempts to have the motions judge decide part of the merits of the case in advance, as if he or she were a fourth member of the merits panel, through the act of editing the offending brief.

Judge Easterbrook announced that from now on he will penalize parties who move to strike by reducing the allotted length of their merits briefs by double the amount consumed by the motion papers.

Forum-Selection Clause In International Contract Must Be Interpreted Pursuant To Choice-of-Law Clause

In a matter of first impression, the Tenth Circuit recently held that “when an international commercial agreement has both choice-of-law and forum-selection provisions, the forum-selection provision must ordinarily be interpreted under the law chosen by the parties” instead of the law where the suit is pending.

In Yavuz v. 61 MM, Ltd., 465 F.3d 418 (10th Cir. Sept. 20, 2006), plaintiff Turkish citizen entered into a contract with a Swiss corporation to receive funds in resolution of a dispute involving Oklahoma real estate. It contained a paragraph stating, “This convention is governed by the Swiss law. . . . Place of courts is Fribourg” (Switzerland).

When plaintiff sued in Oklahoma state court, defendants removed and then moved for dismissal on the grounds of improper venue. The district court granted the motion, and in doing so implicitly interpreted the contract according to United States law, holding that the forum selection clause was enforceable and meant that the dispute was required to be litigated in Fribourg, Switzerland.

Noting that the issue of forum selection clauses in international agreements “has received virtually no attention from the federal courts or even scholars,” the Tenth Circuit looked to several Supreme Court cases arising in the international context. Concluding that the parties’ chosen law should govern the whole contract, including the forum selection clause, it held that the district court should have looked to Swiss law to interpret whether the apparently permissive language “Place of courts is Fribourg” required the claims to be brought in Swiss courts.

Clerk’s Entry Of Judgment Started Appeal Countdown Even Without Court Approval

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 requires that judgments be entered on a separate piece of paper, which is docketed by the clerk. The intent of the rule was to make it very clear when the time would begin to run for filing a notice of appeal. However, the “Rule 58 judgment” concept created some unique problems. For example, if the Rule 58 judgment was never created, the time for appeal could last forever.

In an effort to address that problem, the rule was revised in 2002 to provide that certain types of judgments need not be memorialized in a separate document but are to be docketed by the clerk automatically. All other types of judgments must be placed in a separate document under Rule 58(B)(1), but the clerk must also record on the docket the substance of the judgment. If the separate document is never created, an absolute cap of 150 days from the time the clerk notes the substance of the judgment on the docket under Rule 79(a) limits the time to appeal.

The Fifth Circuit recently applied this rule in Burnley v. City of San Antonio, 470 F.3d 189 (5th Cir. Sept. 15, 2006). There, the clerk entered the fact of a judgment on the docket, but the court never prepared a required Rule 58 judgment. The defendant argued that the clerk’s docketing was “not authorized” and therefore a nullity, but the court held that a clerk has “independent authority and a duty to enter the judgment based on the verdict in the civil docket.” When 150 days passed without the filing of a separate Rule 58 judgment, the clerk’s entry became the judgment as a matter of law. The appellant did not file its appeal within 30 days of that entry, so the appeal was dismissed.

Skeletal Rule 59(e) Motion Fails To Extend Time For Filing Appeal

Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), certain post-judgment motions, including motions under Fed. R. Civ. p. 59(e), extend the time in which to file a notice of appeal. However, in Goodspeed v. Quechee Lakes Corp., 463 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. Sept. 13, 2006), the court held that a Rule 59(e) motion that is so “skeletal” that it fails to raise proper grounds for relief under Rule 59(e) does not qualify to extend the time for appeal.

The motion in this case was clearly perfunctory. It merely stated that counsel required an extension of time to support the motion itself so that counsel could perform a review and determine whether there was something there to bring to the court’s attention. The Second Circuit held that such a motion fails to “state with particularity” the grounds for relief, as required under Rule 7(b)(1), and also seeks an improper end-run around the prohibition in Rule 6(b) against extending the time for taking any action under Rule 59(e).